Talk:Germantown Baptist Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-Please do not add comments related to the church's controversy without first posting a reason for your edit on the discussion board. Both sides of the church's controversy were presented. This article is not a sounding board for one side or the other. If one side was not correctly represented please correct that misrepresentation here first. User:Sweetmoose6
-The article recently submitted: Ex-pastor: An offer they can refuse By Clay Bailey, May 3, 2006 is a relevant article to recent events but consumes a huge part of the page. Over the church's 160 year history there have probably been other controversies before so I'm not sure this is the place to relive the most recent one and all of its unfortunate back and forth. A link to the article would be appropriate and I am going to leave a quote by Story and remove the more inflammatory things so this doesn't become a place where people fight it over again.
I am also not sure that there are figures available for exactly how many staff and members left. Until there is some verifiable source I removed the terms "many" and "a large majority" etc.
Also my last concern is that the recent edit seemed to have a slightly negative bias toward Germantown Baptist. The controversy was understandably difficult. User:Sweetmoose6
[edit] GBC Response
-Megachurch status - I have to seriously doubt that seven thousand members left the church when only approximately 1,500 voted for the proposal. And I'm not picking sides here. It just doesn't seem probable. I imagine attendance is down since all of this is so recent, no senior pastor, staff jumping ship etc. People tend to forget very quickly, though, and once GBC rehires staff I bet the numbers will go back up pretty quickly. That huge building, basketball courts and baseball fields aren't going anywhere.
- the article from the Commercial Appeal is no longer linkable so that is why I placed the whole article on there (i know it was large but i thought it to be important in telling the story) That article probably does paint a good story, but I also think it casts Dr. Story in a rather unfortunate light given that he did give almost a quarter century to the church. I don't think he or even his enemies would want his reputation maligned over some probably regrettable descriptions. What is in the in the public record doesn't always have to be reprinted and in this case it is probably better to leave the simple description in place.
- where are you getting your 150-7000 fact from? All the information I have read has the growth of Dr. Story's tenure to be closer to 5 or maybe 6 thousand. I thought I read 7,000 in an article. If you can find a different source and cite it then change it by all means. I just thought that it was accurate. If it is not it should be changed.
-Dr. Story's comments were much more than just "absolutely an abandonment of everything Baptists are."...and the point that he made them as a guest and invitee to a publicized church event was paramount. As to whether or not his comments were inflamatory or not, they have already been published as public and national record. I think if you are going to list that Dr. Shaw is going to be "marred with ..." then you need to do the same with Dr. Story's legacy being marred by his inflammatory comments. I meant no disrespect to Dr. Shaw by the "marred with" statement. I think I used the word unfortunantly before that, and also described him as a sincere and charismatic leader who brought many new programs to the church. He will have to live with his decision, however, and it ended up dividing a church he had been hired to shepherd. If I am missing something please correct me, but I think that a massive church that splits under your leadership would "mar" the perception of your leadership there. I think he made a lot of right choices and is probably a better person than most of us, but the church still split and many people suffered from it.
- I to am sure the church has had many controversies over the last 160 years but you have to admit that none of them was anywhere close in the magnitude of this one. Its like saying that you shouldn't talk more about Hiroshima because there have been other explosions in the history of the world.You're right, its just the amount and tone of the conversation I'm worried about. I don't want bitter church members and former church members thinking they can fight their war or take pot shots on this web page. Every place has its problems, this is one GBC will quickly recover from and move on. I'm sure this is a big deal to the church now but I doubt it will be five years down the road, unless that area dries up economically which is an entirely different subject.
- as far as quantifiable numbers are concerned, as a former member who watched this thing go down first hand and kept all the information both online and written articles, I can tell you for a fact, and have the bulletins to back it up, that as of May 1, 2006 there were more than 30 full time ministers on staff and as of September 1, 2006 there were at least 20 less including but not limited to all 5 student pastors, 4 of 5 children pastors, all 6 of the 7 leadership team members, all 3 worship leaders, and the head of the counseling ministry. I think this constitutes the use of the word "many", or "most", or even "a bunch of". If you post the numbers of 7,00 members in your article then all you have to do is subtract the number currently listed on the back of any bulletin which hovers around 1,800 - 2,000, give or take, to see that once again the use of the word "many" is quite viable. I think the numbers are notable to help present the average reader with the scope of the aftermath. You may be right, but if I am not mistaken (and I could be) that the 1,800-2K is attending per Sunday. I think that is usually what it is although I could be wrong. I'm not sure I've ever seen churches post the membership in the bulletin. As for the staff, I did haer that quite a few left. Whether that is something to be proud of is quite another conversation. As for how many, I don't know. I imagine the big names left, but what about the sound guy, and the janitor, aren't they staff? So when you say most, I'm sure most of those who were with the administration, so to speak, left, I'm just not sure they represented most of the staff because I would assume the church has a huge amount of lower level staff.
- just in case you want to add it in...the reconciliation group was called Peace Maker Ministries.Okay sounds good to me.
- you might want to also add that savegbc.com has evolved into a book that can be purchased as a plan to win back your church. www.gbcsaved.com Didn't know that. How much do you know about the save GBC thing? My only intent was to create a fair summary of the conflict and move on to other things related to the church. I assume you left because of the incident. I think the Bellevue site has quite a write up on their save the church group. I did not want the GBC site to be like that. That was part of the reason I deleted the Dr. Story article.
[edit] Elder Rule
- Under the section "Elder Rule," I think maybe we should clarify the differences between Presbyterian elders and the "elders" of a Baptist church that function like pastors. Maybe it's best not to include the Presbyterian reference. From what I understand, the elders would have been much different from a Presbyterian model. 68.14.228.24 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
--I think elders are more associated with Presbyterians than Baptists (at least today). How would they have been much different from the Presbyterian model? User:Sweetmoose6
- What I mean is that elders of Presbyterian churches mean that the congregation has no control, while in Southern Baptist churches, elders still have at least a sort of checks/balances with the congregation. Elders here would be appointed by a local church, whereas in Presbyterian churches, elders are appointed by the church hierarchy (I'm pretty sure - correct me if I'm wrong, though). In fact, part of the controversy created here was (I believe) caused by a misunderstanding of the term "elder," though I personally believe the issue became not elders, but Dr. Shaw's leadership and guidance of the church (i.e., taking some influence and control out of key congregational members' hands). You did a great job of fairly bringing this facet of the debate out in your article here. Congrats on that, and I appreciate the way you answer these questions in this forum.68.14.228.24
- I appreciate everything you said. I am far removed from the controversy at GBC but your kind comments are appreciated. It was my goal in the GBC article to be brief and accurate. I think you bring up an excellent point. From what I have read about the church split it is evident that some of the dissenters simply did not like Dr. Shaw's leadership. It is evident that Dr. Shaw made some changes, and my opinion for what it is worth, is that many of them were very good. But people do not like change and I am certain your analysis is correct that for some of the congreation the issue of elders took a back seat to their desire to get rid of Dr. Shaw. The problem I have tried to deal with in the "issues raised" section, though probably not well, is that there were many different reasons people voted either for or against the change.
I have tried to absord the record on this and have even read many of the provisions in the proposed bylaw change in order to understand what happened. I am no expert in church governance, but I really do think the GBC elders proposed by the bylaws closely resembled Presbyterian churches -not that they are wrong mind you, one of the men I respect the most is an elder in a Presbyterian church. From what I understand the Presbyterian elders of that church elect new elders, but they are all accountable at the next level. No such level exists in the Baptist world. I could be wrong, but that is what I understand happens. At GBC the wording of the bylaws suggested that only those who passed through a screening committee could be presented to the church for a vote. After the first vote this screening committee would be the elders. So, in effect, whoever was presented to the congregation for a vote had already been approved by the elders. To me that isn't much of a difference but, like I said, I am certain there are better and more knowledgable people to write about this. I just want to be fair. I think Dr. Story and Dr. Shaw did many good things for the church and the community and I think it would be a shame for this situation to tarnish either of their ministries. Roosevelt once said (paraphrase here) that it is the man in the arena who counts and not the critic. I believe both of the pastors stood in that arena and led boldly and that both grew the church and organized a number of programs that really helped people. It is unfortunate that, in many cases, their critics were louder. That is precisely the reason I wanted to curtail drawn out arguments on this page. I can understand both sides of the elder issue, but I also understand, and hope I brought out the fact that the vote was not a black and white issue (it reflected many competing concerns). There are a number of things I don't understand and have tried to avoid writing about. Please feel free to edit the article to make it more accurate or complete. I just hope that anyone who edits it will understand that those involved should, and are presumably, driven by a common purpose. User:Sweetmoose6
- Thank you for your detailed and helpful comments. I have not personally reviewed the bylaw changes, but I understood that it would act as a screening committee. Since the real issue is accountability of leadership, I feel like it would be okay to leave the elder section as is. Much of the issue was, "Can the leadership of the church run rampant?" (to put it in harsh terms). My point was only that Baptist churches can and do have elder systems that are different from Presbyterian elders. I thank you again for your help and for a balanced article about a very imbalanced situation.
[edit] Issues
I've started an issues raised section under controversy. Its not a place to argue, just to post some of the more pertinent issues this raised.
